[PATCH] Fix cp_binding_level reuse logic

2016-01-27 Thread Patrick Palka
In begin_scope(), we are accidentally clearing the entire free_binding_level store whenever we reuse a single GC-alloced cp_binding_level structure from it. This happens because we erroneously update free_binding_level _after_ the pointer pointing to the next available structure has been cleared,

[PATCH] Fix libstdc++-v3/include/math.h:66:1 2: error: 'constexpr bool std::isnan(double)' conflicts with a previous declaration

2016-01-27 Thread John David Anglin
The attached patch fixes a stage1 build error compiling genautomata.c on hpux. We need to test for obsolete XOPEN declarations of isinf and isnan on hpux. Further, we need to check individually for isinf and isnan on hpux11 since only isnan has an obsolete XOPEN declaration. Tested on hppa2.0w

Re: new port: vn8

2016-01-27 Thread Nguyễn Sinh Ngọc
> If you don’t have your paper work done, you will want to start up that > process now. The port can’t go into the compiler without it. What is the paper? Can you explain more about it? On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 2:47 AM, Mike Stump wrote: > On Jan 26, 2016, at 10:33 PM, Nguyễn Sinh Ngọc > wrot

Re: new port: vn8

2016-01-27 Thread Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
On January 27, 2016 8:47:15 PM GMT+01:00, Mike Stump wrote: >On Jan 26, 2016, at 10:33 PM, Nguyễn Sinh Ngọc > wrote: >> I wonder that what paper is? >> Is it an introduction about new feature in our target? > >I was not able to make any sense of these two question. Likely a >language barrier. I

Re: new port: vn8

2016-01-27 Thread Mike Stump
On Jan 27, 2016, at 7:12 PM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: > On January 27, 2016 8:47:15 PM GMT+01:00, Mike Stump > wrote: >> On Jan 26, 2016, at 10:33 PM, Nguyễn Sinh Ngọc >> wrote: >>> I wonder that what paper is? >>> Is it an introduction about new feature in our target? >> >> I was not

Re: new port: vn8

2016-01-27 Thread Sandra Loosemore
Where is the patch under discussion here? I can't find it in the archives. -Sandra

Re: [PATCH] add test for target/17381 - Unnecessary register move for float extend

2016-01-27 Thread David Edelsohn
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 5:38 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: > The attached patch adds a test for the apparently long fixed > bug. > > FWIW, I've been trying to close out some of these old bugs and > while it doesn't seem to be done consistently, it occurs to me > that it might be nice to add tests for th

Re: [PATCH, rs6000] Disable static branch prediction in absence of real profile data

2016-01-27 Thread David Edelsohn
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 6:10 PM, Pat Haugen wrote: > The following patch prevents static prediction if we don't have real profile > data. Testing on SPEC CPU2006 showed a couple improvements in specint and > specfp neutral. Bootstrap/regtest on powerpc64 with no new regressions. Ok > for trunk? >

Re: new port: vn8

2016-01-27 Thread Nguyễn Sinh Ngọc
> Where is the patch under discussion here? I can't find it in the archives. This is the source code of VN8 target: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B169XTHeyQCfb2ZVak5VRm4tcHc/view?usp=sharing -- Thanks & Best regards Nguyễn Sinh Ngọc Software Department IC Design & Research Education Center

Re: new port: vn8

2016-01-27 Thread Mike Stump
On Jan 27, 2016, at 7:36 PM, Sandra Loosemore wrote: > Where is the patch under discussion here? I can't find it in the archives. It was 500+K after compression. The port didn’t seem terribly large to me.

Re: new port: vn8

2016-01-27 Thread Sandra Loosemore
On 01/27/2016 08:47 PM, Nguyễn Sinh Ngọc wrote: Where is the patch under discussion here? I can't find it in the archives. This is the source code of VN8 target: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B169XTHeyQCfb2ZVak5VRm4tcHc/view?usp=sharing Thanks. I skimmed it over quickly to see if the doc

Re: [PATCH, PR target/69454] Disable TARGET_STV when stack is not properly aligned

2016-01-27 Thread H.J. Lu
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 8:36 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 8:29 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote: >> 2016-01-27 19:18 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu : >>> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 8:11 AM, Ilya Enkovich >>> wrote: On 27 Jan 16:44, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 06:34:41PM +0300

Re: Wonly-top-basic-asm

2016-01-27 Thread David Wohlferd
Rumors that I earn a commission for every person I switch to the "extended asm" plan are completely unfounded... :) That said, I truly believe there are very few cases where using basic asm within a function makes sense. What's more, either they currently work incorrectly and need to be found

<    1   2